(2) They could have protected Jordan Brown if they had done this a month ago

(3) It is never good to just give away players, even if they are relief pitchers with fringe stuff like Mastny.

(4) It is usually not good if you are selling your players just to get a little cash.

So, this could be spun, as has been in the past, as giving Mastny a chance and such BS. It could be spun as being totally unrelated to Brown as it had to do with another forthcoming move (e.g., it could be spun as opening a roster spot for some FA signing). It probably couldn't be spun as being part of a trade as there were other options that have been used previously (like including Mastny in whatever trade was going down). It could be spun as opening a spot on the 40 man for the Rule 5 although I can't imagine a better prospect in the Rule 5 than Jordan Brown so this one probably doesn't fly, either.

So, if they use the roster spots effectively and not for guys we could have had (or had their essential equivalent) on a minor league deal then it is less of an issue as we hope (but have no idea) if the cash they got for Mastny was better than the waiver amount. Still, Tom Mastny in trade could have yielded us, well, the next Tom Mastny. Would that have been worth anything? Well, probably more than cash, IMHO. Plus, unless he is out of options (a real possibility) he could have made it through waivers and so still been our property.

You just don't sell players or give them away for no help to your future or current ML team.

Just curious and we will see what comes about down the road but, on the surface, just another nonsensical move by a franchise that makes a lot of them.

GhostofTedCox wrote:I hope this is not a sign of the times. I can only assume that the Japanese team overpaid for Mastny. Otherwise, why was he left on the 40 man? Maybe we needed the money to pay for a FA?

I highly doubt any money we got for Mastny will be of any significance in signing a FA except that we would need his roster spot. Its smarter to sell his contract and get something out of it then just cutting him loose for some other team to pick up, isn't it?

(2) They could have protected Jordan Brown if they had done this a month ago

(3) It is never good to just give away players, even if they are relief pitchers with fringe stuff like Mastny.

(4) It is usually not good if you are selling your players just to get a little cash.

So, this could be spun, as has been in the past, as giving Mastny a chance and such BS. It could be spun as being totally unrelated to Brown as it had to do with another forthcoming move (e.g., it could be spun as opening a roster spot for some FA signing). It probably couldn't be spun as being part of a trade as there were other options that have been used previously (like including Mastny in whatever trade was going down). It could be spun as opening a spot on the 40 man for the Rule 5 although I can't imagine a better prospect in the Rule 5 than Jordan Brown so this one probably doesn't fly, either.

So, if they use the roster spots effectively and not for guys we could have had (or had their essential equivalent) on a minor league deal then it is less of an issue as we hope (but have no idea) if the cash they got for Mastny was better than the waiver amount. Still, Tom Mastny in trade could have yielded us, well, the next Tom Mastny. Would that have been worth anything? Well, probably more than cash, IMHO. Plus, unless he is out of options (a real possibility) he could have made it through waivers and so still been our property.

You just don't sell players or give them away for no help to your future or current ML team.

Just curious and we will see what comes about down the road but, on the surface, just another nonsensical move by a franchise that makes a lot of them.

(1) I really don't think we are supposed to know. We're fans.

(2) Maybe they didn't want to protect Jordan Brown! There is a lot to be said for managing the 40.

(3) Why? Not sure I understand logic. Do you want to give away valid prospects and hold onto fringe?

(4) Can you guarantee that we could get better for Mastny? I doubt they could.

Why spin at all except to be generous to a player who gave his best to the tribe? I don't see that is wrong. Can you guarantee that Mastny could have brought more? The Indians had every incentive to get more. Maybe the best they could do for all concerned? Looks pretty sensible to me!

The Cleveland Indians today sold the contract of RHP TOM MASTNY to the Yokohama Bay Stars of the Japanese Central League.

Mastny, 27, split the 2008 season between AAA Buffalo and Cleveland. He went 2-2 w/a 1.78 ERA in 28 games for Buffalo (35.1IP, 26H, 7ER, 12BB, 43K, .206AVG) and with the Indians he was 2-2 w/a 10.80 ERA in 14 games (1GS, 20.0IP, 28H, 24ER, 11BB, 19K, .318AVG).

Let this week play out before criticizing this move. If the Tribe signs a decent FA or makes a trade to add player(s) to the 40, the Mastny dump would have to been done regardless. If no moves are made this week then I do not understand why Mastny was not sold earlier so Brown could have been protected on the 40.

Whether or not Mastny was sold now or a month ago is irrelevant to Brown as he would not have been rostered either way. They were rostering five guys. Mastny's spot supposedly has or was being kept warm for a major league body to replace it, so with him off it appears they now expect to add at least two major league 40-man guys this offseason. Aside from Marte and Mujica, no one else is likely to be dumped (Aubrey won't be dumped now).

(1) I really don't think we are supposed to know. We're fans. - But what they do should be logical, in general, don't you believe? Thus, when the dust settles, it should make sense.

(2) Maybe they didn't want to protect Jordan Brown! There is a lot to be said for managing the 40. - If that last sentence isn't a good straight line I haven't heard one. So, if Jordan gets drafted and goes on to have a good ML career elsewhere and at least one guy kept on the 40 tanks this coming season or they have an open roster spot come the end of ST, then they mismanaged the 40 man, right?

(3) Why? Not sure I understand logic. Do you want to give away valid prospects and hold onto fringe? - Exactly the opposite. Mujica is fringe. I think Toregas is fringe and there are others, too, who could be replaced. I keep real prospects and Jordan Brown is a better prospect than some of the guys on the 40 now.

(4) Can you guarantee that we could get better for Mastny? I doubt they could. - I remember when we traded Alomar and threw in Peoples and another fringe prospect because the 40-man was full. I think it is reasonable to think that Mastny might have been an interesting throw-in to help get a deal done.

Why spin at all except to be generous to a player who gave his best to the tribe? I don't see that is wrong. Can you guarantee that Mastny could have brought more? The Indians had every incentive to get more. Maybe the best they could do for all concerned? Looks pretty sensible to me! - This idea of the Indians acting in the best interest of the player has been put forth before. If the guy is truly an option for 2009 and he has an option left, why just dump him? Now you are out that possibility for 2009.

Regarding the Mastny dumping - Brown non-rostering they ARE related, if in only one aspect:

Brown isn't that great of a prospect. You're vastly overvaluing him plain and simple. His ceiling at best is that of Lyle Overbay....and even that is likely pushing it. We already have a guy like that on our roster too in Aubrey. They have nearly identical stats in the minors and Aubrey is the better defensive 1B.

We got cash for Mastny, which could be used to buy a Rule 5 guy or just use to help out in other areas. The money we got for him will likely be around the same we 'saved' in releasing Michaels last year.

dnosco wrote:(1) I really don't think we are supposed to know. We're fans. - But what they do should be logical, in general, don't you believe? Thus, when the dust settles, it should make sense.

(2) Maybe they didn't want to protect Jordan Brown! There is a lot to be said for managing the 40. - If that last sentence isn't a good straight line I haven't heard one. So, if Jordan gets drafted and goes on to have a good ML career elsewhere and at least one guy kept on the 40 tanks this coming season or they have an open roster spot come the end of ST, then they mismanaged the 40 man, right?

(3) Why? Not sure I understand logic. Do you want to give away valid prospects and hold onto fringe? - Exactly the opposite. Mujica is fringe. I think Toregas is fringe and there are others, too, who could be replaced. I keep real prospects and Jordan Brown is a better prospect than some of the guys on the 40 now.

(4) Can you guarantee that we could get better for Mastny? I doubt they could. - I remember when we traded Alomar and threw in Peoples and another fringe prospect because the 40-man was full. I think it is reasonable to think that Mastny might have been an interesting throw-in to help get a deal done.

Why spin at all except to be generous to a player who gave his best to the tribe? I don't see that is wrong. Can you guarantee that Mastny could have brought more? The Indians had every incentive to get more. Maybe the best they could do for all concerned? Looks pretty sensible to me! - This idea of the Indians acting in the best interest of the player has been put forth before. If the guy is truly an option for 2009 and he has an option left, why just dump him? Now you are out that possibility for 2009.

Regarding the Mastny dumping - Brown non-rostering they ARE related, if in only one aspect:

40-man roster management

Some of what you say makes a great deal of sense. I think you overvalue both Brown and Mastny. But I hope you will concede that selling Mastny to replace the 40 spot with Kerry Wood has the potential to make sense if it comes to fruition. Would that qualify as good 40 management?

Another Indians player that is thrilled to be away from the mismanagement (Shap and Wedge) of this org.

And why are posters saying the Brown is overrated? He won league MVPs two years in a row. He had a .421 OBP in AA.

His numbers were down in 08 because of an injury. Didn't anybody learn from Lee's 07 and 08 seasons?

I really like Brown but I think most people who are down on him are the power issue with him. Personally I see a guy who can hit 30-35 doubles 10-15 Hrs and get on base.

With mastny he was always more of an orginzational fringe guy, he had chances to show he belonged last year but was lack luster. I dont see any issue with this move and I hope he dominate sand is in the majros next year again, seems lieka good guy

We tend to forget that Mastny was an overachiever. No way, with his stuff, should he be pitching in the majors. Still, he was, and wasn't totally ineffective, so he had some value....for the cash-starved Indians who have to sell players to sign draft picks, that value was in $$$$.

I didn't know why we kept him on the 40-man roster ... and now with Woods signing, we can see why Shapiro let him go to make him happy.

Really for 7 spots

WoodsJ LewisPerezBetancourtKobi

Then pick 2 ofMujicaRundlesStevensMeloanJacksonSippMiller

Probably Jackson and Mujica (not the best talent yet the most veteran that Wedgie likes for the last 2 spots).

Plus you know Shapiro will bring in another 1 or 2 vets to compete like a Ricon.

With the young guys coming up and Jackson out of options, Mastny would not see the light of day. And, I would not want Meloan and Stevens in the minors beyond June. And, Sipp should be up by year end. Then you throw Miller in the mix, you can't get everyone in the pen by mid-year.

I still don't know why they want Miller in the pen (unless it is a permanent change) when he could just as easily be the 5th starter who goes mainly in May, June and part of July before moving to the pen when Westbrook comes back (thus limiting his innings that way).

petes999 wrote:I didn't know why we kept him on the 40-man roster ... and now with Woods signing, we can see why Shapiro let him go to make him happy.

Really for 7 spots

WoodsJ LewisPerezBetancourtKobi

Then pick 2 ofMujicaRundlesStevensMeloanJacksonSippMiller

Probably Jackson and Mujica (not the best talent yet the most veteran that Wedgie likes for the last 2 spots).

Plus you know Shapiro will bring in another 1 or 2 vets to compete like a Ricon.

With the young guys coming up and Jackson out of options, Mastny would not see the light of day. And, I would not want Meloan and Stevens in the minors beyond June. And, Sipp should be up by year end. Then you throw Miller in the mix, you can't get everyone in the pen by mid-year.

I still don't know why they want Miller in the pen (unless it is a permanent change) when he could just as easily be the 5th starter who goes mainly in May, June and part of July before moving to the pen when Westbrook comes back (thus limiting his innings that way).

But who goes as the fifth starter in April, I assume you include Miller for that, he could easily throw 90 innings if not 100 by the time Westbrook comes back, he only threw something like 53 Innings this year (can't remember that exact number), my point is once Westbrook is back, Miller would have to be shut down for the rest of the year, as his IP limit would either be reached or very close as I imagine they would only increase his IP load by 40 at the most.

When we give a player away for nothing we are good guys. Why not give Dellucci away so he can make some more money somewhere else? I think that this humanitarian angle isn't really appropriate reasoning in a business where assets and performance are all that matter. But it makes a good story and a good rationalization.

All that being said, he was just a placeholder for someone else, they determined he wouldn't be a part of the 2009 Indians and so they took something for him.

But we should do it because we are good human beings and we put that over business success? Not so much.

dnosco wrote:When we give a player away for nothing we are good guys. Why not give Dellucci away so he can make some more money somewhere else? I think that this humanitarian angle isn't really appropriate reasoning in a business where assets and performance are all that matter. But it makes a good story and a good rationalization.

All that being said, he was just a placeholder for someone else, they determined he wouldn't be a part of the 2009 Indians and so they took something for him.

But we should do it because we are good human beings and we put that over business success? Not so much.

He had really no use to this team they moved him and go some cash, it was a solid deal because no one was going to give up jack for mastny anywhere else, its a nice story but it was also the best they could get for him. I swear to god no one but Dennis can do anything write in his mind

Listen closely. Mastny is the one who made this deal happen. The Indians had no part of it until he approached them about selling him to the Japanese team. He is in line to make about 2.5 times more money and a chance to kickstart his career now. By the same token, the Indians were able to get a little cash for a player they otherwise would not have much need for this year and who was wasting a roster spot and you likely was one of the upcoming casualties anyway when they add more players. Now, had Mastny had more value to the Indians as a pitcher, they would NOT have sold him. It is nice they obliged with his request, but the only reason they allowed it is because he had little value to them. If he had some value, they would have declined.

why are people so up in arms about mastny? the guy is a filler at best and thats all he ever will be. i doubt you ever see him on a big league roster again. he should give some of his salary to wedge and shapiro for allowing him to play in the major leagues. they werent just giving him away for nothing, nobody in there right mind wanted him. i'm still mad they gave up a usefull player in john mcdonald for the bumb. i've seen slow pitch softball pitchers throw harder. the guy sucks lets be glad he's in japan and move on.

So they will have enough options in Columbus if someone goes down that Mastny would have had, at no time, any value to them next year? If they had, say, 3 other good AAA options next year then I say you are correct. Hey, the guy was fringe at best. But he was cheap fringe, an organizational guy, and was probably as good as any of the multiple AAAA guys they will trot through Columbus and maybe into Cleveland for a week next year...unless they have 3 options at AAA next year who are better than him.

So they will have enough options in Columbus if someone goes down that Mastny would have had, at no time, any value to them next year? If they had, say, 3 other good AAA options next year then I say you are correct. Hey, the guy was fringe at best. But he was cheap fringe, an organizational guy, and was probably as good as any of the multiple AAAA guys they will trot through Columbus and maybe into Cleveland for a week next year...unless they have 3 options at AAA next year who are better than him.

How about four: Stevens, Meloan, Miller, and Sipp

And if he is still in the org after tomorrow, Newsom in a pinch. Hell even Rundles. All of these guys likely are starting the year in Columbus.

Mountains. Mole hills. As a wise old man named Obi-Wan once said, "nothing to see here, move along."

dnosco wrote:(1) I really don't think we are supposed to know. We're fans. - But what they do should be logical, in general, don't you believe? Thus, when the dust settles, it should make sense.

(2) Maybe they didn't want to protect Jordan Brown! There is a lot to be said for managing the 40. - If that last sentence isn't a good straight line I haven't heard one. So, if Jordan gets drafted and goes on to have a good ML career elsewhere and at least one guy kept on the 40 tanks this coming season or they have an open roster spot come the end of ST, then they mismanaged the 40 man, right?

(3) Why? Not sure I understand logic. Do you want to give away valid prospects and hold onto fringe? - Exactly the opposite. Mujica is fringe. I think Toregas is fringe and there are others, too, who could be replaced. I keep real prospects and Jordan Brown is a better prospect than some of the guys on the 40 now.

(4) Can you guarantee that we could get better for Mastny? I doubt they could. - I remember when we traded Alomar and threw in Peoples and another fringe prospect because the 40-man was full. I think it is reasonable to think that Mastny might have been an interesting throw-in to help get a deal done.

Why spin at all except to be generous to a player who gave his best to the tribe? I don't see that is wrong. Can you guarantee that Mastny could have brought more? The Indians had every incentive to get more. Maybe the best they could do for all concerned? Looks pretty sensible to me! - This idea of the Indians acting in the best interest of the player has been put forth before. If the guy is truly an option for 2009 and he has an option left, why just dump him? Now you are out that possibility for 2009.

Regarding the Mastny dumping - Brown non-rostering they ARE related, if in only one aspect:

40-man roster management

Looks like a great job of 40 man roster management to me whether you like any of the deals or not. Your track record in 2008 is taking some hits. Unlike some of the others, I like your posts but find logic flaws. This was one. Much posting about nothing. Not as bad as your analysis of the Reyes/Perdomo trade, which appears to be one of the great misassessments of all time, but hard to give you much credit on this one.